Jump to content

Revision of Review process


Recommended Posts

The current system works as well as we let it work. If everyone would ACTUALLY READ the GUIDELINES, and adhere to those guidelines prior to submitting a cache for review, the system would work great!

 

I think they should add a pop quiz that you have to take with every cache submission just to show that you atually read and understand the guidelines. :laughing:

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
The current system works as well as we let it work. If everyone would ACTUALLY READ the GUIDELINES, and adhere to those guidelines prior to submitting a cache for review, the system would work great!

 

I think they should add a pop quiz that you have to take with every cache submission just to show that you actually read and understand the guidelines. :laughing: El Diablo

The problem is that many think because they are just guidelines and not rules; that they can easily bypass them if they rationalize things well enough. It seems like checking all these rationalizations would make the reviewers job a PITA. If they made some of the more critical guidelines into rules, then it would make things crystal clear and should make the reviewers jobs a little easier.
Link to comment
The current system works as well as we let it work. If everyone would ACTUALLY READ the GUIDELINES, and adhere to those guidelines prior to submitting a cache for review, the system would work great!

 

I think they should add a pop quiz that you have to take with every cache submission just to show that you actually read and understand the guidelines. :laughing: El Diablo

The problem is that many think because they are just guidelines and not rules; that they can easily bypass them if they rationalize things well enough. It seems like checking all these rationalizations would make the reviewers job a PITA. If they made some of the more critical guidelines into rules, then it would make things crystal clear and should make the reviewers jobs a little easier.

 

They are guidelines and if you know the reasons they exist you can know exactly when you can flex the living snot out of them and not even be rationalizing. You would also know when they are not going to flex at all.

Link to comment
The current system works as well as we let it work. If everyone would ACTUALLY READ the GUIDELINES, and adhere to those guidelines prior to submitting a cache for review, the system would work great!

 

I think they should add a pop quiz that you have to take with every cache submission just to show that you actually read and understand the guidelines. :laughing: El Diablo

The problem is that many think because they are just guidelines and not rules; that they can easily bypass them if they rationalize things well enough. It seems like checking all these rationalizations would make the reviewers job a PITA. If they made some of the more critical guidelines into rules, then it would make things crystal clear and should make the reviewers jobs a little easier.

Wouldn't that make the remaining guidelines even more flimsy?

Link to comment
The current system works as well as we let it work. If everyone would ACTUALLY READ the GUIDELINES, and adhere to those guidelines prior to submitting a cache for review, the system would work great!

 

I think they should add a pop quiz that you have to take with every cache submission just to show that you actually read and understand the guidelines. :laughing: El Diablo

The problem is that many think because they are just guidelines and not rules; that they can easily bypass them if they rationalize things well enough. It seems like checking all these rationalizations would make the reviewers job a PITA. If they made some of the more critical guidelines into rules, then it would make things crystal clear and should make the reviewers jobs a little easier.

Wouldn't that make the remaining guidelines even more flimsy?

Some of them need to left to interpretation but some do not!
Link to comment
The current system works as well as we let it work. If everyone would ACTUALLY READ the GUIDELINES, and adhere to those guidelines prior to submitting a cache for review, the system would work great!

 

I think they should add a pop quiz that you have to take with every cache submission just to show that you actually read and understand the guidelines. :laughing: El Diablo

The problem is that many think because they are just guidelines and not rules; that they can easily bypass them if they rationalize things well enough. It seems like checking all these rationalizations would make the reviewers job a PITA. If they made some of the more critical guidelines into rules, then it would make things crystal clear and should make the reviewers jobs a little easier.

I think it's simpler than that. Some people just refuse to respect the guidelines. Making them rules will just punish the people who are already humble enough to respect them.

 

Ignorance is repairable by a nudge to the guidelines and the hider will learn. :huh: Arrogance isn't, because the hider thinks his super cool idea is too good for the guidelines. There's always constraints to creativity, and for performing arts, it's the audience, and for Geocaching, it's the finders (who are audiences, too).

Link to comment
They are guidelines and if you know the reasons they exist you can know exactly when you can flex the living snot out of them and not even be rationalizing. You would also know when they are not going to flex at all.

:laughing: You're killing me in this topic. :huh:

 

Your post is right on the money though.

Link to comment
The current system works as well as we let it work. If everyone would ACTUALLY READ the GUIDELINES, and adhere to those guidelines prior to submitting a cache for review, the system would work great!

 

I think they should add a pop quiz that you have to take with every cache submission just to show that you actually read and understand the guidelines. :laughing: El Diablo

The problem is that many think because they are just guidelines and not rules; that they can easily bypass them if they rationalize things well enough. It seems like checking all these rationalizations would make the reviewers job a PITA. If they made some of the more critical guidelines into rules, then it would make things crystal clear and should make the reviewers jobs a little easier.
Wouldn't that make the remaining guidelines even more flimsy?
Some of them need to left to interpretation but some do not!

You know, not only am I not sure which guideline you're railing agains (for?), but I'm not sure if you are making the point for more or less interpretation of it.

 

Oh well...

Link to comment
The current system works as well as we let it work. If everyone would ACTUALLY READ the GUIDELINES, and adhere to those guidelines prior to submitting a cache for review, the system would work great!

 

I think they should add a pop quiz that you have to take with every cache submission just to show that you actually read and understand the guidelines. :laughing: El Diablo

The problem is that many think because they are just guidelines and not rules; that they can easily bypass them if they rationalize things well enough. It seems like checking all these rationalizations would make the reviewers job a PITA. If they made some of the more critical guidelines into rules, then it would make things crystal clear and should make the reviewers jobs a little easier.
Wouldn't that make the remaining guidelines even more flimsy?
Some of them need to left to interpretation but some do not!

You know, not only am I not sure which guideline you're railing agains (for?), but I'm not sure if you are making the point for more or less interpretation of it.

I'm not railing. I was simply pointing out that the reviewers should err on the side of caution, so we don't have so many embarrassing incidents. There are so many places to hide caches that are in complete compliance with the guidelines. Why flirt with disaster?
Link to comment
I'm not railing. I was simply pointing out that the reviewers should err on the side of caution, so we don't have so many embarrassing incidents. There are so many places to hide caches that are in complete compliance with the guidelines. Why flirt with disaster?
I don't think that this is a guidelines issue. If a reviewer believes that a cache is in violation with the guidelines, he/she asks more questions. This has little to do with the link you posted since most of those caches have not been shown to have been in clear violation of the guidelines.
Link to comment
I'm not railing. I was simply pointing out that the reviewers should err on the side of caution, so we don't have so many embarrassing incidents. There are so many places to hide caches that are in complete compliance with the guidelines. Why flirt with disaster?
I don't think that this is a guidelines issue. If a reviewer believes that a cache is in violation with the guidelines, he/she asks more questions. This has little to do with the link you posted since most of those caches have not been shown to have been in clear violation of the guidelines.
When serious incidents occur, the incident, the guidelines and the approval process should all be carefully reviewed. Depending on what is found, corrective actions may be needed to minimize the chances of another similar incident from happening again. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I'm not railing. I was simply pointing out that the reviewers should err on the side of caution, so we don't have so many embarrassing incidents. There are so many places to hide caches that are in complete compliance with the guidelines. Why flirt with disaster?
I don't think that this is a guidelines issue. If a reviewer believes that a cache is in violation with the guidelines, he/she asks more questions. This has little to do with the link you posted since most of those caches have not been shown to have been in clear violation of the guidelines.
When serious incidents occur, the incident, the guidelines and the approval process should all be carefully reviewed. Depending on what is found, corrective actions may be needed to minimize the chances of another similar incident from happening again.

Agreed. Of course, I can't think of a single serious incident.

 

Perhaps an example is when knives got caches banned in certain areas or when that cacher got arrested for being on railroad property. Wait a minute, processes were reviewed and changes made when those happened.

 

A muggle calling the police when they stumble upon a cache is not a serious incident. It is merely a fact of life.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I See there is pretty much no support for my position. That is OK. I have seen several really good reasons why it won't work and you are all probably right. As with anything, if you don't want it to work, it won't. Obviously the peer review process would require more resources than the current process, but IF it would result in fewer "bad" placements, would it not be worth it?

 

Is any of the idea of value? If the consensus is "NO", then as far as I'm concerned, OK to close topic.

.

.

.

.

I picked this quote at random of the many like it:

The changes you suggest to the current system are not justified...

 

I won't tell you why I think that, since you don't want to hear it anyway.

 

Well-said, since this is a non-discussion thread in the "General Geocaching Discussions" area.

 

I am sorry so many people don't understand that I am trying to limit debate ON THE PREMISES PRESENTED only.

 

That is because I wanted the TOPIC to be THE IDEA PRESENTED

 

Wasn't I clear that those who think it is not broken or needs no changes, need not enter into the debate about the merits of the IDEA?

 

For those that understood and have posted rationally about the TOPIC, Thank You. From those posts one should be clearly able to see that it IS possible to STIPULATE a premise and debate the merits of an idea based upon that premise!

 

Does anyone read really really long involved OPs? :laughing:

 

No major changes are necessary.

Well, I looks like some have taken the time to read it. Others choose to post without knowing exactly what they are reponding to... a lot like many voters.

 

I think I expressed it as succinctly as possible without leaving out important details.

 

I'm sorry I couldn't get it condensed to a 10 second sound bite for you.

Link to comment

If I find your premise to be less than agreeable then therefore I must find your solution to be as well.

 

Not all (or even many) new cachers and first placements are bad or lame. Not all experienced cachers place good caches. So why should we adjust the process to account for the opposite?? We can't even agree on a universally accepted definition of a "lame" cache.

Link to comment
I See there is pretty much no support for my position. That is OK. I have seen several really good reasons why it won't work and you are all probably right. As with anything, if you don't want it to work, it won't. Obviously the peer review process would require more resources than the current process, but IF it would result in fewer "bad" placements, would it not be worth it? ...
Two things: First, you minimize everyone who doesn't like your idea as 'not wanting it to work'. Nice.

 

Second, I challenge you to find five random cachers who agree on what a "bad" placement is.

 

I read your entire post, but am only interested in responding to these points. Is that OK?

Link to comment

I read your post first word to last.

You assumed that I would agree with your premises.

You asked that if I didn't agree that I respond with "no changes to the current system would be justified".

That is what I did.

 

I don't see how we could have a serious discussion of your proposal without discussing the premises you put forth.

Link to comment

Soon, we will have roving bands of cache police. :cry:

That sounds too mild.

 

I know there was a brief off-topic discussion about "GeoFascism" in another thread. Maybe that's what you are trying to prevent? :laughing:

 

Ultimately, the responsbility of "lameness" rests with the hider, because the reviewer merely looks over a listing for bigger problems (hence the reason why guidelines exist). Regardless of how people have responded, I think that's the general message here. Does the OP agree with this at least?

 

Many threads have tried to fix "lameness" but they always end with "we play the game we want to" responses... like the countless threads being locked right now. :huh:

 

Maybe we should :cry: GeoAnarchy, too.

Link to comment

Their concerns could be limited to guidelines or they could be given authority to judge quality issues as well.

 

It seems this sentence is the source of a lot of the objection to the general principle (besides the aforementioned personpower issue).

 

I should have left that out as it is only a secondary consideration to the idea (that is why I used the word "or").

 

Sorry, Sbell, I didn't mean anyone who disagrees with me wants my idea to fail (although that could be reasonably inferred), what I meant was, in the generic sense anyone can make anything fail if they don't like it and anyone can give a million good reasons why something won't work. I have no doubt that the cacveman that invented the wheel had to listen to the constant laughter of his buddies..."that'll never fly".

 

I REALLY didn't mean YOU don't want it to work. It was just a statement of human nature.

Link to comment

Soon, we will have roving bands of cache police. :unsure:

As the old Honeywell® commercial said; "That someday is NOW!"

 

Maybe if there was an officially sanctioned body of peer reviewers, who actually physically inspected a new cache, the self appointed cache police might give it a rest?

 

A lot of the "cache police" activities are responses to perceived hazards and irregularities. It seems to me that the big objections to their actions are "who died and made you god?" and "is this REALLY that bad?".

 

I submit that if there were fewer irregularities (due to their being detected and remedied prior to publication), the "cache police" might spend more time in the donut shoppe.

Link to comment
I REALLY didn't mean YOU don't want it to work. It was just a statement of human nature.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but rest assured that if I feel something is worth speaking out against I really don't want it to work!

 

Since few folks speak out against ideas they think have merit and want to see work, I think you can infer that the overwhelming majority of responders here really don't want it! :unsure:

 

Ed

Link to comment
I REALLY didn't mean YOU don't want it to work. It was just a statement of human nature.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but rest assured that if I feel something is worth speaking out against I really don't want it to work!

 

Since few folks speak out against ideas they think have merit and want to see work, I think you can infer that the overwhelming majority of responders here really don't want it! :blink:

 

Ed

well, yeah

I GOT that point :unsure:

Link to comment

I’m always amazed that nobody suggests simply lying to the reviewer. :blink: After all, if being untruthful is acceptable when logging an alleged ‘find’ on a cache, why not use that same standard when hiding one?

 

No, no changes are needed.

 

:unsure: You never miss a chance to bring up your favorite dead horse. ;)

Link to comment

I’m always amazed that nobody suggests simply lying to the reviewer. :blink: After all, if being untruthful is acceptable when logging an alleged ‘find’ on a cache, why not use that same standard when hiding one?

 

No, no changes are needed.

 

:unsure: You never miss a chance to bring up your favorite dead horse. ;)

It's a valid point. A lie is a lie, and if you have to lie to play such a silly game....

 

A lie is OK as long as it's not related to a hide then, right?

Link to comment

I’m always amazed that nobody suggests simply lying to the reviewer. :blink: After all, if being untruthful is acceptable when logging an alleged ‘find’ on a cache, why not use that same standard when hiding one?

 

No, no changes are needed.

 

:unsure: You never miss a chance to bring up your favorite dead horse. ;)

It's a valid point. A lie is a lie, and if you have to lie to play such a silly game....

 

A lie is OK as long as it's not related to a hide then, right?

 

Hmm... I think I remember promising to obey all driving laws when I got my license, I suspect you did too.

 

Good thing you never exceed the speed limit, or someone's likely to call you a liar!

 

Ed

Link to comment

I’m always amazed that nobody suggests simply lying to the reviewer. :blink: After all, if being untruthful is acceptable when logging an alleged ‘find’ on a cache, why not use that same standard when hiding one?

 

No, no changes are needed.

 

:unsure: You never miss a chance to bring up your favorite dead horse. ;)

It's a valid point. A lie is a lie, and if you have to lie to play such a silly game....

 

A lie is OK as long as it's not related to a hide then, right?

 

Hmm... I think I remember promising to obey all driving laws when I got my license, I suspect you did too.

 

Good thing you never exceed the speed limit, or someone's likely to call you a liar!

 

Ed

That analogy is not apt. If you saw me going down the road and asked me if I was speeding, I’d tell you the truth. If you select Found It when there was no cache there, you lied. The game depends on the honor system, if your integrity is of so little value that you have to lie to play, you might be better off in a different game.

Link to comment
You never miss a chance to bring up your favorite dead horse.

He wouldn't be the Criminal we all know and love if he wasn't insulting those folks he disagrees with. :unsure:

 

Back on topic: While there are bits & pieces of your suggestion that might bear fruit, overall it's just dumping work on others and extending the reviewing process. As the system stands, when BillyBobNosePicker submits his first hide, the reviewer of choice checks it out to see if it meets the guidelines. Perhaps they will go as far as asking the hider for oft forgotten details prior to giving the submission their thumb's up.

 

If I understand your proposal, after the reviewer deems BillyBob's cache as meeting the guidelines, they would send someone to physically check the location. On an easy cache I could guess that at least one day would be added to the process, more on a harder cache.

 

Perhaps, rather than creating teams of cache checkers, the reviewers could simply maintain a mental database of seasoned cachers across their area? That way, if something about a cache submission caused eyebrows to raise, and couldn't be resolved by talking to the owner, possibly lending itself to physical scrutiny, the reviewer could send a simple E-mail to someone local who could check it out. That way you're only checking out those caches that need it, as opposed to every cache hidden by a first time hider.

 

Note: The aforementioned is not something I'm proposing. I like the current system and trust Groundspeak to fix it if & when it ever needs fixing

(Where's that brown nosing smiley?) :blink:

Link to comment
You never miss a chance to bring up your favorite dead horse.

He wouldn't be the Criminal we all know and love if he wasn't insulting those folks he disagrees with. :unsure:

 

Back on topic: While there are bits & pieces of your suggestion that might bear fruit, overall it's just dumping work on others and extending the reviewing process. As the system stands, when BillyBobNosePicker submits his first hide, the reviewer of choice checks it out to see if it meets the guidelines. Perhaps they will go as far as asking the hider for oft forgotten details prior to giving the submission their thumb's up.

 

If I understand your proposal, after the reviewer deems BillyBob's cache as meeting the guidelines, they would send someone to physically check the location. On an easy cache I could guess that at least one day would be added to the process, more on a harder cache.

 

Perhaps, rather than creating teams of cache checkers, the reviewers could simply maintain a mental database of seasoned cachers across their area? That way, if something about a cache submission caused eyebrows to raise, and couldn't be resolved by talking to the owner, possibly lending itself to physical scrutiny, the reviewer could send a simple E-mail to someone local who could check it out. That way you're only checking out those caches that need it, as opposed to every cache hidden by a first time hider.

 

Note: The aforementioned is not something I'm proposing. I like the current system and trust Groundspeak to fix it if & when it ever needs fixing

(Where's that brown nosing smiley?) :blink:

 

Actually, a number of Reviewers may already pratice something along these lines, albeit in a very quiet and informal way!

 

I know that when I was reviewing and a question came up where I couldn't personally go look and/or I wanted a third-party opinion I asked some cacher I knew that lived close to it to check it out for me.

 

You might even be surprised how often that happens!

 

But I would not extend that to a formal peer review process, no.

 

Ed

Link to comment
You never miss a chance to bring up your favorite dead horse.

He wouldn't be the Criminal we all know and love if he wasn't insulting those folks he disagrees with. :blink:

 

Back on topic: While there are bits & pieces of your suggestion that might bear fruit, overall it's just dumping work on others and extending the reviewing process. As the system stands, when BillyBobNosePicker submits his first hide, the reviewer of choice checks it out to see if it meets the guidelines. Perhaps they will go as far as asking the hider for oft forgotten details prior to giving the submission their thumb's up.

 

If I understand your proposal, after the reviewer deems BillyBob's cache as meeting the guidelines, they would send someone to physically check the location. On an easy cache I could guess that at least one day would be added to the process, more on a harder cache.

 

Perhaps, rather than creating teams of cache checkers, the reviewers could simply maintain a mental database of seasoned cachers across their area? That way, if something about a cache submission caused eyebrows to raise, and couldn't be resolved by talking to the owner, possibly lending itself to physical scrutiny, the reviewer could send a simple E-mail to someone local who could check it out. That way you're only checking out those caches that need it, as opposed to every cache hidden by a first time hider.

 

Note: The aforementioned is not something I'm proposing. I like the current system and trust Groundspeak to fix it if & when it ever needs fixing

(Where's that brown nosing smiley?) ;)

brownnosedf2.gif:unsure:
Link to comment

So, Criminal... your concern that people might just lie to the reviewer is really a GOOD argument for my idea. Glad to see you agree with me :unsure: (Glad SOMEBODY does-even if I have to read it into it!) :)

 

Back on topic: While there are bits & pieces of your suggestion that might bear fruit, overall it's just dumping work on others and extending the reviewing process. As the system stands, when BillyBobNosePicker submits his first hide, the reviewer of choice checks it out to see if it meets the guidelines. Perhaps they will go as far as asking the hider for oft forgotten details prior to giving the submission their thumb's up.

 

1. If I understand your proposal, after the reviewer deems BillyBob's cache as meeting the guidelines, they would send someone to physically check the location. On an easy cache I could guess that at least one day would be added to the process, more on a harder cache.

 

Perhaps, rather than creating teams of cache checkers, the reviewers could simply maintain a mental database of seasoned cachers across their area? That way, if something about a cache submission caused eyebrows to raise, and couldn't be resolved by talking to the owner, possibly lending itself to physical scrutiny, 2. the reviewer could send a simple E-mail to someone local who could check it out. That way you're only checking out those caches that need it, as opposed to every cache hidden by a first time hider.

 

Note: The aforementioned is not something I'm proposing. I like the current system and trust Groundspeak to fix it if & when it ever needs fixing

(Where's that brown nosing smiley?) ;)

 

1. In the OP I said that those caches that get the easy OK would simply get the OK as they do now. If the official reviewer saw no problems, there would be no peer review.

 

The routine peer review of newbies was not meant to be a mandatory part of the proposal, it is essrentially a "line item" that could be struck independently of the main idea.

 

2. A single physical peer reviewer would cause a lot of consternation as is the case now when a reviewer turns down a cache based upon his/her single opinion. That is the reason for 5 peer reviewers- sort of a "supreme court". (only not appointed for life :blink: )

Link to comment
2. A single physical peer reviewer would cause a lot of consternation as is the case now when a reviewer turns down a cache based upon his/her single opinion. That is the reason for 5 peer reviewers- sort of a "supreme court". (only not appointed for life )

 

You have that now, and it works quite well!

 

If you don't agree with a Reviewer's decision you can ask him/her to take it to the Reviewer forum, where every Reviewer world-wide can read and weigh in on the issue, and come to a consensus conclusion. Reviewers do not all think alike, do not always agree nor do they collude to cover for one another, so you will get an honest review and decision by the best minds in the game.

 

If you still don't like the answer you can appeal to Groundspeak, who will give it a fair review.

 

If you STILL don't agree with the answer you can bring it to these forums for debate.

 

If the cache does get listed the finder's logs will give you a 'real-world' or 'geocacher's eye view' of the cache, and if there is anything seriously wrong they will report it either to the owner or Reviewer.

 

Do you really want or need any more reviewing than that?

 

Ed

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

If you saw me going down the road and asked me if I was speeding, I’d tell you the truth.

But what if a COP saw you, eh? wink wink nudge nudge....

Well, at least I'd bet you'd have a good excuse.

B):D:D:unsure::D:D:D:):D:D (hopefully sufficient smileys to indicate I'm not serious)

:D:blink:B):DB)B);)

Actually, you don't have to confess but if you do not deny what happened, you increase your chance of receiving a mere "warning" instead of a speeding ticket. Most cops are just waiting to pounce on perpetual liars.

Link to comment

<Big Snip>

I am sorry so many people don't understand that I am trying to limit debate ON THE PREMISES PRESENTED only.

 

That is because I wanted the TOPIC to be THE IDEA PRESENTED

 

Wasn't I clear that those who think it is not broken or needs no changes, need not enter into the debate about the merits of the IDEA?

 

For those that understood and have posted rationally about the TOPIC, Thank You. From those posts one should be clearly able to see that it IS possible to STIPULATE a premise and debate the merits of an idea based upon that premise!

 

Ahh, yeah-this is a public forum hosted at a private website. Good Luck restricting a discussion to only the very narrow topic you want to discuss. :cry: Perhaps at geoAlbania the forums might work like that? :cry:

Perhaps we should allow OP's to delete any addition to their thread that they don't want there, just like a cache owner can delete a log? :cry:

 

Does anyone read really really long involved OPs? :cry:

 

No major changes are necessary.

Well, I looks like some have taken the time to read it. Others choose to post without knowing exactly what they are reponding to... a lot like many voters.

 

I think I expressed it as succinctly as possible without leaving out important details.

 

I'm sorry I couldn't get it condensed to a 10 second sound bite for you.

I never said I didn't read the entire post. I merely posed a somewhat related question. No need to get all snarky CC. There is a world between 10 second sound bites and 10 paragraph OP's.

BTW, I just re read your OP, it actually reads like you are more interested in a quality control police than simply ensuring that all caches really are placed according to the guidelines; or did I misunderstand the OP?

I think adding a quality control corps would be the death of geocaching, and would create splinter groups. Of course some might think that is a good thing, but we aren't supposed to be debating that subject in this thread are we?

Either way, I still stand by my original response of "no major changes are necessary, and the proposed concept has way more negatives than positives IMHO.

Link to comment
2. A single physical peer reviewer would cause a lot of consternation as is the case now when a reviewer turns down a cache based upon his/her single opinion. That is the reason for 5 peer reviewers- sort of a "supreme court". (only not appointed for life )

 

You have that now, and it works quite well!

 

The only thing my idea would add is a physical inspection of the cache and its associated environment. As others have said, some reviewers do that now (I think that is what I was responding to in the above quote). The only thing I would add is that the physical inspection would be done by more than one person to avoid accusations of unfairness.

 

BTW, I just re read your OP, it actually reads like you are more interested in a quality control police than simply ensuring that all caches really are placed according to the guidelines; or did I misunderstand the OP?

I think adding a quality control corps would be the death of geocaching, and would create splinter groups. Of course some might think that is a good thing, but we aren't supposed to be debating that subject in this thread are we?

Either way, I still stand by my original response of "no major changes are necessary, and the proposed concept has way more negatives than positives IMHO.

Your opinion is very valid, but as I said a few posts earlier, the "quality" aspect is really a separate line item. The peer reviewers would physically check the cache (primarily) for guidelines compliance and serious hazards. What I tried to say is they could also check coordinate accuracy, rating accuracy, and possibly quality issues.

 

I fully realise (assuming the forums are a representative sample) that very few in the caching community are going to get behind any measure of cache quality. That horse has been given 100 consecutive death sentences in the forums. So we are doomed forever to have a LOT of "lameness". Too, I understand that "lameness" cannot be defined.

 

Perhaps if there were a "quality control corps" (as you interpret the idea), they could review caches and tactfully suggest ways that a particular cache might be improved. I would agree that denying "lame" caches listing space would be wrong.

 

And OBTW, I'm still OK with "no changes needed" as I was in the OP.

Link to comment

I fully realise (assuming the forums are a representative sample) that very few in the caching community are going to get behind any measure of cache quality. That horse has been given 100 consecutive death sentences in the forums. So we are doomed forever to have a LOT of "lameness". Too, I understand that "lameness" cannot be defined.

 

Perhaps if there were a "quality control corps" (as you interpret the idea), they could review caches and tactfully suggest ways that a particular cache might be improved. I would agree that denying "lame" caches listing space would be wrong.

 

And OBTW, I'm still OK with "no changes needed" as I was in the OP.

 

You do realize, that there's a certain grandfathered cache type that could use some quality control... maybe your ideas can be applied there... hint hint... maybe a new thread for this will be nice once you recollect your thoughts. :cry:

Link to comment

You do realize, that there's a certain grandfathered cache type that could use some quality control... maybe your ideas can be applied there... hint hint... maybe a new thread for this will be nice once you recollect your thoughts. B)

Well, I guess I have to confess to ignorance here. If it is grandfathered, what is there to do? Honestly I don't know what you are referring to. But if you'll post a thread on it, I'm sure I'll give my 2c. :D

 

I'm really not about quality control though. I believe that is a subject that should be left to the hiders. Improvements would be nice, but basically the quality issue is an in-house debate.

 

I am most concerned with common sense, safety, and those unspeakable issues that will, if we continue to refuse to address them, result in our little game being banned pretty much everywhere.

Link to comment

You do realize, that there's a certain grandfathered cache type that could use some quality control... maybe your ideas can be applied there... hint hint... maybe a new thread for this will be nice once you recollect your thoughts. :D

Well, I guess I have to confess to ignorance here. If it is grandfathered, what is there to do? Honestly I don't know what you are referring to. But if you'll post a thread on it, I'm sure I'll give my 2c. :huh:

 

I'm really not about quality control though. I believe that is a subject that should be left to the hiders. Improvements would be nice, but basically the quality issue is an in-house debate.

 

I am most concerned with common sense, safety, and those unspeakable issues that will, if we continue to refuse to address them, result in our little game being banned pretty much everywhere.

Budd was talking about virtuals...as in your process might resuscitate them.....

 

Anyhow, I believe we are supposed to report any cache when we see a clear violation of the guidelines. B)

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I am most concerned with common sense, safety, and those unspeakable issues that will, if we continue to refuse to address them, result in our little game being banned pretty much everywhere.

 

Unspeakable issues should be spoken about with the existing reviewers, not resolved by setting up an additional bureaucracy of minor locals five times the size.

 

If you really believe our hobby is about to be banned, why not say so, instead of proposing a solution which may not be debated, to other problems which may not exist?

Link to comment

My thoughts/questions about a five man/woman review team:

 

1. How many teams per state? How big an area would each team cover? In WA it takes up to six hours to get to all corners of the state (from Seattle).

 

2. What if not all members of the team are available to hunt the cache? What about their "real" lives? I've seen up to dozen caches listed at the same time (that's in a 15 mile area around my house), that could be an all day trip to cover them all (Hmm, adding another 5 man-days to OK game pieces).

 

3. What about puzzle caches? Does the team have to solve them? And what if they can't? Or do they get the final co-ords only? Would it then be fair for them to log it as a find?

 

4. Would the teams work as a group? Or each member find it on their own? This is an off-shoot of #2, I guess.

Link to comment

My thoughts/questions about a five man/woman review team:

 

1. How many teams per state? How big an area would each team cover? In WA it takes up to six hours to get to all corners of the state (from Seattle).

 

2. What if not all members of the team are available to hunt the cache? What about their "real" lives? I've seen up to dozen caches listed at the same time (that's in a 15 mile area around my house), that could be an all day trip to cover them all (Hmm, adding another 5 man-days to OK game pieces).

 

3. What about puzzle caches? Does the team have to solve them? And what if they can't? Or do they get the final co-ords only? Would it then be fair for them to log it as a find?

 

4. Would the teams work as a group? Or each member find it on their own? This is an off-shoot of #2, I guess.

Let's just have Mtn-Man and Quiggle find them all as the rest of the crew reviews them.

Link to comment

Why not just let the reviewers "officially" use trusted volunteer helpers? Anytime they see a cache near a school or a bridge or whatever might be a guideline violation, they could ask the closest volunteer to check it out for them. Caches placed in questionable places would take much longer to approve so that would also discourage people from placing caches in borderline locations.

Link to comment

Why not just let the reviewers "officially" use trusted volunteer helpers? Anytime they see a cache near a school or a bridge or whatever might be a guideline violation, they could ask the closest volunteer to check it out for them. Caches placed in questionable places would take much longer to approve so that would also discourage people from placing caches in borderline locations.

 

For that matter why have volunteer anythings?

 

Groundspeak isn't a startup scratching for dollars to buy a server anymore! They are, one would assume, a very profitable business enterprise!

 

Why not have, say, ten full-time staff Reviewers at the coprporate office? 3 shifts of 3 Reviewers around the clock with a swing guy to schedule for the busiest hours? I expect the proceeds from selling trackable numbers alone would cover much of this cost!

 

If you need folks to actually go look at caches have Field Reviewers in each state, folks whose gas and expenses are reimbursed who run out to inspect questionable caches for the Corporate Reviewers? You reckon we could find folks willing to get paid to go caching?

 

That'd work as well as anything else suggested here!

 

Ed

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...